Earlier in the week, organizers of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) conference, one of the biggest AI research conferences in the world, took the unusual step of calling her CVPR tutorial
about how bias in AI goes far beyond data “required viewing for us all.”
That’s what made the situation with Facebook chief AI scientist Yann LeCun this week so perplexing.
The entire episode between two of the best-known AI researchers in the world came about as part of a conversation that started about a week ago with the release of PULSE
, a computer vision model created by Duke University researchers that claims it can generate realistic, high-resolution images of people from a pixelated photo.
The controversial system combines generative adversarial networks (GANs) with self-supervised learning. For training it used the Flickr Face HQ Data set
compiled last year by a team of Nvidia researchers. The same data set was used to create the StyleGAN model. It seemed to work fine on White and Asian people, but one observer input a depixelated photo of President Obama, and PULSE produced a photo of a White man
. Other photos generated images that give Samuel L. Jackson blonde hair or turn Muhammad Ali into a White man.
In response to a colleague calling the Obama photo an example of the dangers of AI bias, LeCun asserted that “ML systems are biased when data is biased.”
Analysis of a portion of the data set found far more white women and men than Black women
, but people quickly took issue with the characterization that bias is about data alone. Gebru then suggested LeCun watch her tutorial, which repeats as a central message that AI bias cannot be reduced to data alone, or explore the work of other experts who say the same.
In Gebru’s tutorial, she says that evaluation of whether or not an AI model is fair must take into consideration more than just data, and she challenged the computer vision community to “understand just how pervasively our technology is being used to marginalize many groups of people.”
“I think my take home message here is fairness is not just about data sets, and it’s not just about math. Fairness is about society as well, and as engineers, as scientists, we can’t really shy away from that fact,” Gebru said in the tutorial.
There’s no shortage of resources that explain why bias is about more than data. As Gebru was quick to point out, LeCun is president of the ICLR conference, where earlier this year Ruha Benjamin asserted in a keynote address
that “computational depth without historic or sociological depth is superficial learning.”
Debate waged on Twitter until Monday, when LeCun shared a 17-tweet thread
about bias in which he said he didn’t intend to say ML systems are biased due to data alone, but that in the case of PULSE the bias comes from the data. LeCun finished the thread by suggesting that Gebru avoid getting emotional in her response – a comment many female AI researchers interpreted as sexist.
Many Black researchers and women of color in the Twitter conversation expressed disappointment and frustration at LeCun’s position. UC Berkeley PhD student Devin Guillory, who published a paper this week
about how AI researchers can combat anti-Blackness in the AI community accused LeCun
of “gaslighting Black women and dismissing tons of scholarly work.” Other prominent AI researchers made similar accusations.
Gaslighting is defined as an act of psychological manipulation to make someone question their sanity. Gaslighting Black female researchers is especially cruel given how many female researchers describe colleagues who fail to cite their work as part of the erasure phenomena
Gebru wasn’t the only Google AI leader to confront LeCun this week. Google AI researcher and CIFAR AI chair
Nicholas Le Roux suggested LeCun listen
to criticism, especially when it’s coming from a person representing a marginalized community. He also urged LeCun not to engage in tone policing and other tactics associated with maintaining the balance of power. Google AI chief Jeff Dean also urged people to recognize bias goes beyond data.
Rather than taking Le Roux’s advice, LeCun responded to his criticism with a Facebook post on Thursday
championing the opinions of an anonymous Twitter user who says social justice movements will take away people’s ability to engage in constructive discourse.
Later in the day, LeCun tweeted
that he admires Gebru’s work and hopes they can work together to fight bias. Facebook VP of AI Jerome Pesenti also apologized
for how the conversation escalated and said that it’s important to listen to the experiences of people who have experienced racial injustice. At no time in the series of posts did it appear that LeCun attempted to engage with Gebru’s research.
Black former Facebook employees have complained about mistreatment, and controversy over Facebook’s willingness to keep up a Trump post that Twitter labeled as glorifying violence and observers called a racist dog whistle. A Wall Street Journal report
last month found that Facebook executives were notified that its recommendation algorithms were dividing people and stoking hatred but they did not change things in part due to fear of conversative backlash. Even employees at the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative said they have diversity issues and that the nonprofit needs to decide what side of history they want to be on and change how it deals with race
What’s noticeably missing from LeCun’s assessment of AI bias and Pesenti’s apology Thursday is the role of hiring and building diverse teams. LeCun’s comments come a little over a week after Facebook CTO Mike Schroepfer told VentureBeat that AI bias is generally the result of biased AI
. He would go on to champion diversity as a way to mitigate bias, but he could not offer evidence of diverse hiring practices at FAIR. Facebook collects and publicly reports some diversity statistics but does not measure diversity at Facebook AI Research, which LeCun founded in 2013.
A Facebook AI spokesperson told VentureBeat that all employees are required to participate in training to identify personal bias.
It’s unsettling to see someone with as much privilege as Lecun attempt to argue technical matters but ignore the work of a Black colleague at a time when issues of racial inequality sparked protests of historic size around the world. Those protests are still happening.
This story isn’t over. Analysis and opinions about the exchange
between Gebru and LeCun involving the wider AI community may percolate for a while, and Pesenti promises Facebook AI will change, but something about the series of events and related news seems like a systemic problem. If FAIR valued diversity or Facebook had a more diverse group of employees or made listening to marginalized communities a priority, maybe none of this would have happened. Or it wouldn’t have taken nearly a week for Facebook executives to intervene and apologize.
Yann LeCun is one of the most powerful men in the AI community today. He wouldn’t be a Turing Award winner
or neural network pioneer if he couldn’t grasp complicated subjects, but this whole series of debate while people demand equal rights in the streets comes off as sort of juvenile or childish. You can describe the Gebru-LeCun episode as sad and unfortunate and a range of other adjectives, but two things stick with me: 1) AI researchers – many of them Black or women – shouldn’t have to dedicate time to convincing LeCun of established facts and 2) this was a missed opportunity for a leader to demonstrate leadership.
In his apology to Gebru Thursday, Pesenti said Facebook will result in change and education. No specifics were offered, but let’s hope that change involves more than words but meaningful action.
Thanks for reading,
Senior AI Staff Writer